My question was legitimate as well. Your belief or disbelief has zero to do with the topic and inherently disrespectful.
Care to discuss the topic or not?
This is what you get with an over bloated central government, the more power and money it controls, the more people are going to fight to control it. Want it to change? Try becoming a small government conservative and seek to scale back its size, power and money.
Again, I find that hard to believe, if you wanted to know the answer a one second google search would provide it.
âThe answerâ implies there is one correct answer and I doubt thatâs the case. Iâm more interested in your opinion since this is a discussion board and I have no interest in discussing something with google.
Care to discuss the topic or are you going to remain evasive. It would have taken two seconds to reply.
For the life of me, i can find no wheres in the US Constitution giving Justices appointments for life.
Well itâs right here
from Article Three of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
small government conservatives? Where?
That sounds nice in theory and Iâm guessing those who are have good intentions, but once on the Hill that small government stuff goes away. The path to hell is paved with good intentions. The lure of power, control and wealth is too strong. All of them eventually will sell out to their corporate masters and we the American people are left to deal with it.
Ok, you didnât ask me for my opinion, what you asked was simply why, the answer to which can be found here.
from The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78
The Federalist Papers: No. 78 . âIf, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices,â Hamilton wrote, âsince nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.â
The goal may be unattainable at this point, that doesnât mean it isnât the right ideal, so I can count you in on principle?
Sounds like a good idea. 10 year terms.
An 18 year appointment works just as effectively as lifetime appointments with regards to remaining a bulwark of a limited Constitution.
Although come to think of it, arenât lifetime appointments just as harmful to a limited Constitution? It seems like proponents of a limited Constitution arenât exactly happy with the court these last decades.
What happens if somebody dies before their 18 years are up? Nominate somebody to serve out the last 3-4 years then kick them off? many noms would want to wait and get their full term and now you have a president appointing more then 2.
Or you donât appoint anyone and wait until the term is up.
Is having a seat potentially be vacant for up to 17 years really a good solution?
Iâd start the clock anew for each new Justice.
I donât see the 2 Justice/President limit as a pressing need with limited terms. Itâs having a President nominating a bunch of 40-year olds with limited experience simply to stack the court for 40+ years thatâs the problem.
Whatâs the harm?
That has far more to do with a weak executive and congress than with appointments for life on the supreme court.
Yet lifetime appointments have done little to prevent it.
The idea that theyâre a bulwark of the constitution has not been borne out by history. Certainly not anywhere close to the degree that an 18 year term cannot easily accomplish the exact same task to an equal (if ineffective) degree.
Now that youâve been called on your rudeness, youâre trying to walk it back. Nice.
Term limits do not address the real problem, which is the broken appointment process.
I would amend the Constitution to abolish the current system of Presidential nomination, Senate advice and consent and Presidential appointment and replace it with the Missouri Plan of merit selection.
I would establish merit selection boards which would be mandated to have an equal partisan balance at all times. They would interview candidates, conduct background investigations and would PRIVATELY handle any accusations received against a candidate. They would evaluate each candidates qualifications and select the three most highly qualified candidates. A two-thirds majority of the board would be required to recommend a candidate, ensuring that candidate selected would have broad bipartisan approval. The three candidates would be sent to the President who would make the final selection. There would be no Senate advice and consent process.
This process would greatly diminish the ability of Presidents of either party to influence the judiciary, as the very nature of the process would result in primarily centrist candidates being sent up. Candidates perceived as too far to the left or too far to the right would be unlikely to garner a two-thirds majority of the bipartisan boards.
Because these boards, by their bipartisan nature would not have a political motivation, they would be more likely to select older candidates, who consequently would have shorter tenures. I would be open to require a minimum age of 55 years to prevent exceptionally young candidates from being appointed, who would consequently have long a tenure.
I oppose term limits and fixed terms.
1 Like
